[FairfieldLife] The Religious Mind
The attack by Muslims in Paris on the magazine Charlie Hebdo, which satirises various subjects, show how much human minds infected with religious memes can deviate from rational social behaviour. This may result in a huge backlash against Muslims who are more peaceful and somewhat less crazy. The news media still does not talk about these things directly, calling the problem terrorism rather than religion, but all the inciting ideas come from Islam. 2015 shooting at Charlie Hebdo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_shooting_at_Charlie_Hebdo 2015 shooting at Charlie Hebdo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_shooting_at_Charlie_Hebdo Two or three masked men stormed the headquarters of the French satrical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on 7 January 2015, at about 11 a.m. CET (UTC +1). Early reports suggest that 12 people were killed and 10 injured.[2][3] The gunmen entered the building and began sho... View on en.wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_shooting_at_Charlie_Hebdo Preview by Yahoo
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Religious Mind
How sad. And isn't it fascinating that these weak minds poisoned by religion
become more deranged about those who satirize and poke fun and laugh at them
and at their beliefs than they do with those who just criticize them
intellectually?
It's just like some TBs on the Internet -- argue with them incessantly, and
they're fine, because they can delude themselves into thinking someone is
taking them seriously. But just laugh at them and encourage others to laugh,
too, and they go batshit crazy.
From: anartax...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife]
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 2:41 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] The Religious Mind
The attack by Muslims in Paris on the magazine Charlie Hebdo, which
satirises various subjects, show how much human minds infected with religious
memes can deviate from rational social behaviour. This may result in a huge
backlash against Muslims who are more peaceful and somewhat less crazy. The
news media still does not talk about these things directly, calling the problem
terrorism rather than religion, but all the inciting ideas come from Islam.2015
shooting at Charlie Hebdo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
||
|| 2015 shooting at Charlie Hebdo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two or three masked men stormed the headquarters of the French satrical
magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris on 7 January 2015, at about 11 a.m. CET (UTC
+1). Early reports suggest that 12 people were killed and 10 injured.[2][3] The
gunmen entered the building and began sho...||
| View on en.wikipedia.org |Preview by Yahoo|
||
#yiv7455481145 #yiv7455481145 -- #yiv7455481145ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv7455481145
#yiv7455481145ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv7455481145
#yiv7455481145ygrp-mkp #yiv7455481145hd
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}#yiv7455481145 #yiv7455481145ygrp-mkp #yiv7455481145ads
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv7455481145 #yiv7455481145ygrp-mkp .yiv7455481145ad
{padding:0 0;}#yiv7455481145 #yiv7455481145ygrp-mkp .yiv7455481145ad p
{margin:0;}#yiv7455481145 #yiv7455481145ygrp-mkp .yiv7455481145ad a
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7455481145 #yiv7455481145ygrp-sponsor
#yiv7455481145ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv7455481145
#yiv7455481145ygrp-sponsor #yiv7455481145ygrp-lc #yiv7455481145hd {margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv7455481145
#yiv7455481145ygrp-sponsor #yiv7455481145ygrp-lc .yiv7455481145ad
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv7455481145 #yiv7455481145actions
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv7455481145
#yiv7455481145activity
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv7455481145
#yiv7455481145activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv7455481145
#yiv7455481145activity span:first-child
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv7455481145 #yiv7455481145activity span a
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv7455481145 #yiv7455481145activity span
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv7455481145 #yiv7455481145activity span
.yiv7455481145underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv7455481145
.yiv7455481145attach
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}#yiv7455481145 .yiv7455481145attach div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7455481145 .yiv7455481145attach img
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv7455481145 .yiv7455481145attach label
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv7455481145 .yiv7455481145attach label a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7455481145 blockquote {margin:0 0 0
4px;}#yiv7455481145 .yiv7455481145bold
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv7455481145
.yiv7455481145bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7455481145 dd.yiv7455481145last
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv7455481145 dd.yiv7455481145last p
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv7455481145
dd.yiv7455481145last p span.yiv7455481145yshortcuts
{margin-right:0;}#yiv7455481145 div.yiv7455481145attach-table div div a
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv7455481145 div.yiv7455481145attach-table
{width:400px;}#yiv7455481145 div.yiv7455481145file-title a, #yiv7455481145
div.yiv7455481145file-title a:active, #yiv7455481145
div.yiv7455481145file-title a:hover, #yiv7455481145 div.yiv7455481145file-title
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7455481145 div.yiv7455481145photo-title a,
#yiv7455481145 div.yiv7455481145photo-title a:active, #yiv7455481145
div.yiv7455481145photo-title a:hover, #yiv7455481145
div.yiv7455481145photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv7455481145
div#yiv7455481145ygrp-mlmsg #yiv7455481145ygrp-msg p a
span.yiv7455481145yshortcuts
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv7455481145
.yiv7455481145green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv7455481145
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Religious Mind
--In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote : The difference of your POV and mine is, that mine is emic, and yours is etic. I think, that every group, decides themself, how they believe in what, and it is the people themselves, who follow their interpretation of whatever scripture. What they follow, and how they understand it, is up to their own definition. So, if a majority of muslims, interpret their scriptures in a way that is peaceful, then this is what they follow, and you cannot make them accountable for an interpretation, that may be historically correct, or not, or whatever - C2: I don't believe that this distinction applies too well to either of us although I enjoyed reading that, thanks. It is context dependent for a more academic and formal study. I spent my first 30 years within a religious and spiritual context so it remains as a reference point even if I am examining beliefs from outside. But more importantly, I do not share the view of multicultural relativism represented in a statement about accountability for bad ideas. This is precisely what I am arguing against for epistemological reasons. And these principles that guide believing things for good reasons transcend culture as the scientific method has. (Although I am not limiting the application of epistemological criteria to that alone.) A: It's like this, the same with the mantras of TM, if you are not believeing that you are repeating the calling names of gods, then your are indeed only repeating a meaningless word, because that's the way you understand it. C2: I can understand this POV. It served me well when I was in the movement concerning our hiding the full understanding from Maharishi from the public. It has some validity for me even now. But it also misses the more relevant point for me now which is, what is the mantra selection really based on? And what is the full theory behind how it works? I believe it is lacking in merit when we consider the mythology it is based on IMO. YMMV. Emic and etic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic Emic and etic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic Emic and etic, in anthropology, folkloristics, and the social and behavioral sciences, refer to two kinds of field research done and viewpoints obtained;[1] from within the social group (from the perspective of the subject) and from outside (from the perspective of... View on en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Your words made me think so thanks for that. It sent me on a mission to see where the gaps are in my thinking along the lines you indicate. Because I certainly did focus on the religious connection when I read this news. It would be natural for you to do so, since this is your big topic. C2: I have lots of big topics in my life. It is kind of a big topic here because this is a spiritually focused discussion group. I don't think your trying to connect Barry's statement with another group with ideas he may not agree with really helps your case. All people who challenge religious beliefs are not right wing nationalists. These are unconnected ideas. Right, of course. But why make the same mistake as them? You see that this is their big argument, which they even carry in their name, to stop Muslims, all, as they think they would take over. C2: The battle between Christian and Muslim ideology has been going on for quite some time through history. I am not sure that their concerns are ill founded. Where I differ is that I don't believe the reformed religions like Christianity are different fundamentally although heir expressions in society differ to some extent. Since the appeal to scripture and tradition i similar as a source of knowledge they are both on my shit list. I found a lot of information from moderate Muslums which would help to support your point. They quoted their scriptures and showed how the statements in it do not really mean what it seems to mean concerning the punishment for blasphemy. For example if it says that a person should be killed for blasphemy against the prophet they say that this is what God will do and it isn't an instruction for man to act on it. All well and good for them in their households. Little problem is that the laws based on other interpretations in Pakistan for example give a death penalty for blasphemy and they base this law on THEIR interpretation of scripture. And we all know how ISSL is interpreting it. There are many different types of Muslims, just as there are many different types of Christians. For example, the majority of Muslims in India and Pakistan is of the Sufi denomination. In fact they frequently find themselves to be the target of their more radical ones, like the Taliban etc. They
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Religious Mind
Your words made me think so thanks for that. It sent me on a mission to see where the gaps are in my thinking along the lines you indicate. Because I certainly did focus on the religious connection when I read this news. I don't think your trying to connect Barry's statement with another group with ideas he may not agree with really helps your case. All people who challenge religious beliefs are not right wing nationalists. These are unconnected ideas. I found a lot of information from moderate Muslums which would help to support your point. They quoted their scriptures and showed how the statements in it do not really mean what it seems to mean concerning the punishment for blasphemy. For example if it says that a person should be killed for blasphemy against the prophet they say that this is what God will do and it isn't an instruction for man to act on it. All well and good for them in their households. Little problem is that the laws based on other interpretations in Pakistan for example give a death penalty for blasphemy and they base this law on THEIR interpretation of scripture. And we all know how ISSL is interpreting it. But the main problem I have is that moderates in religion still make the same epistemological blunder of accepting old books as the the word of God and therefor an unquestioned authority in human affairs. Christians love to dismiss all the foam on lip crazy talk of the Old Testament God saying things like stone adulterers and giving precise instructions how to sell your daughters into slavery. They say that Jesus didn't preach that so we can safely ignore what God said himself, directly. They claim that Jesus brought a new covenant that fulfills all these laws. Problem is that Jesus makes it clear: Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. So we need to fulfill the law to stone adulterers? And before we get in a parsing war about what he means by this, if there are different ways to interpret it, this is the problem. He did not say :I come to abolish all those park bench babbling crazy statements my lunatic father made when he was on the vino a little heavy. He did not say that all that stuff in the Old Testament was wrong. So we are left with humans believing that the scripture is the word of God and that some humans on earth are able to interpret the sometimes ambiguous statements for the rest of us which is the source of most of the trouble with the extremists. But to say that it is a few extremists is intellectually dishonest. It includes the law in numerous countries where blaspheme laws exist. The only thing these wackos in France did was to apply the religiously based laws of certain countries outside those countries. And they did it under cover of the idea that there is a God who communicates to man through certain books which can be interpreted by certain people who know his will. And this IS the central part of religious thinking that I believe must be challenged in these modern times and not protected by religious moderates. As long as society protects bad ideas as beyond criticism because of the cover of religion we cannot directly address the root of the problem. Society needs to drop the pretense of religious tolerance while enabling an epistemology of authority from dubious sources. When even religious moderates pick and choose what they follow from what God directly says in his so called scriptures, then we can all join the party and make direct statements about what ideas are bad ones like we do with literally EVERY other human idea. The first to go is the concept that a supreme being has communicated to man and we know this because some people wrote ambiguous literature about what he wants a long time ago. ‘Maulana Subhan Mahmood relied upon verse: 9:65 and 66; 33:57; 49:2; 2:217; 5:75; 39:1, 65; 47:28. He has related some Ahadith and juristic opinions wherein the contempter has been considered an apostate. He has further relied upon a Hadith related on the authority of Abu Qulabah wherein the punishment of contempter has been prescribed death. He has also relied upon the Hadith related by Qazi Ayaz that the Holy Prophet said: “Kill the person who abuses the Prophet and whip the one who abuses his companions”’ (Para 4). - See more at: http://www.reviewofreligions.org/5002/what-is-the-punishment-for-blasphemy-in-islam/#sthash.WtyqYvsG.dpuf http://www.reviewofreligions.org/5002/what-is-the-punishment-for-blasphemy-in-islam/#sthash.WtyqYvsG.dpuf ‘Maulana Subhan Mahmood relied upon verse: 9:65 and 66; 33:57; 49:2; 2:217; 5:75; 39:1, 65; 47:28. He has related some Ahadith and juristic opinions wherein the contempter has been considered an apostate. He has further relied upon a
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Religious Mind
The difference of your POV and mine is, that mine is emic, and yours is etic. I think, that every group, decides themself, how they believe in what, and it is the people themselves, who follow their interpretation of whatever scripture. What they follow, and how they understand it, is up to their own definition. So, if a majority of muslims, interpret their scriptures in a way that is peaceful, then this is what they follow, and you cannot make them accountable for an interpretation, that may be historically correct, or not, or whatever - It's like this, the same with the mantras of TM, if you are not believeing that you are repeating the calling names of gods, then your are indeed only repeating a meaningless word, because that's the way you understand it. Emic and etic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic Emic and etic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic Emic and etic, in anthropology, folkloristics, and the social and behavioral sciences, refer to two kinds of field research done and viewpoints obtained;[1] from within the social group (from the perspective of the subject) and from outside (from the perspective of... View on en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emic_and_etic Preview by Yahoo ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues@... wrote : Your words made me think so thanks for that. It sent me on a mission to see where the gaps are in my thinking along the lines you indicate. Because I certainly did focus on the religious connection when I read this news. It would be natural for you to do so, since this is your big topic. I don't think your trying to connect Barry's statement with another group with ideas he may not agree with really helps your case. All people who challenge religious beliefs are not right wing nationalists. These are unconnected ideas. Right, of course. But why make the same mistake as them? You see that this is their big argument, which they even carry in their name, to stop Muslims, all, as they think they would take over. I found a lot of information from moderate Muslums which would help to support your point. They quoted their scriptures and showed how the statements in it do not really mean what it seems to mean concerning the punishment for blasphemy. For example if it says that a person should be killed for blasphemy against the prophet they say that this is what God will do and it isn't an instruction for man to act on it. All well and good for them in their households. Little problem is that the laws based on other interpretations in Pakistan for example give a death penalty for blasphemy and they base this law on THEIR interpretation of scripture. And we all know how ISSL is interpreting it. There are many different types of Muslims, just as there are many different types of Christians. For example, the majority of Muslims in India and Pakistan is of the Sufi denomination. In fact they frequently find themselves to be the target of their more radical ones, like the Taliban etc. They frequently blow up their mosques and other sanctuaries. Now, are you going to tell them, that the Wahhabis , which even in Saudi Arabia are a dominant minority, or the Deobands are practising the right way of Islam? But the main problem I have is that moderates in religion still make the same epistemological blunder of accepting old books as the the word of God and therefor an unquestioned authority in human affairs. Christians love to dismiss all the foam on lip crazy talk of the Old Testament God saying things like stone adulterers and giving precise instructions how to sell your daughters into slavery. They say that Jesus didn't preach that so we can safely ignore what God said himself, directly. They claim that Jesus brought a new covenant that fulfills all these laws. Problem is that Jesus makes it clear: They may make any type of epistemological mistakes, that is not at all relevant in this context - what is relevant here only is, if what they believe is dangerous to other's. It is they themslves, who define, what islam means to them. It's they same with language. You define the meaning of words by using it in a particular context. It is a sort of an agreement within a group of people. And for the majority of muslims it is simply not the case that they are violent. The minority of Wahhabis, call the Sufis, the majority in India and Pakistan 'Kafi' - non-believers. Btw. I admire that you actually read this, the bible so many times, I think I have never even read it through once . Matthew 5:17-18 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. So we need to fulfill the law to stone adulterers?
Re: [FairfieldLife] The Religious Mind
And it's just equally sad to use this sad incidence to flame againts religion in general. It's just the worst generalization, and total lack of discrimination, and no western government, neither the Dutch nor the American, nor the French nor the German, would ever say it as you just said. You like to provocate, your calling, but it doesn't make you look very smart. In Germany we have the pegida PEGIDA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEGIDA who actually blame the muslims in general for this kinds of attacks, and they are largely regarded as right wing nationalists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEGIDA PEGIDA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEGIDA Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes (PEGIDA, in English: Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West)[note 1] is ... View on en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEGIDA Preview by Yahoo
